The Original Scientific Device

Published on January 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 88 | Comments: 0 | Views: 662
of 13
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content


1 | P a g e
The Original Scientific Device
Science, Experience and Ultimate Knowledge
Antti Luomala
Department of Social Research
University of Tampere
2010
2 | P a g e
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Obectivit! in modern "cience
3. Integral thought and panp"!chi"m
4. #aw" of experience
5. Differentiating "cience from metaparadigm"
6. Theorie", explanation" and perception
7. Ultimate $nowledge
8. %ain "cientific re"earch tradition" of non&dualit!
9. 'ighe"t "tandard of truth( the full! "elf&reali)ed
10. %odern "cience and the "cience of "elf&reali)ation
11. Empirical "tud! of metaparadigm "hift
12. Summar!
13. *uthoritie" and direct perception
3 | P a g e
1. Introduction
Many scholars have recently discussed the millennial u!!le o" o#$ectivity esecially in relation to
certain themes o" %uantum hysics
1
& cosmology
2
and neurohysiology
3
. 'hey suggest a ne(
scienti"ic metaaradigm is emerging (hich (ill relace the hysicalist reductionism o" modern
science (ith an integral "rame(or) o" non*duality. +ontrasting the modern ,ar(inian concetion o"
undirected evolution emerging inside an initially hysical and o#$ective universe the integral
arehension sees reality centered on the evolution o" cosmic sel"*a(areness& e%uivalent (ith the
descritions o" individuals (ith divine and mystical ercetions.
-ithin the challenges osed #y this hori!on o" metaaradigm shi"t the hilosohical enigma o"
o#$ectivity . the relationshi o" )no(er& )no(n and )no(ing . inha#its a )ey role. /ll systematic
modes o" )no(ledge rest on a articular sensi#ility determining ho( to distinguish #et(een
)no(ledge and #elie" . and #et(een truth and "alsity. 'his sensi#ility dividing real "rom "ancy is
"urther "ounded on a deeer and more su#tle intimation rescri#ing (hat the target o" )no(ing is and
(ho the )no(er is.
2. Obectivit! in modern "cience
Modern science #uilds on the intimation that real )no(ledge is thoroughly o#$ective& contrasting the
su#$ective mental imressions o" individual human #eings. Methodologically such o#$ectivity means
that ercetions and theories o" individual scientists mean nothing unless roven e""ective through
methods o" con"irmation in (hich human ercetion is ruled out. /t a deeer metahysical level the
modern o#$ectivity theorem assumes that the entire universe is rimordially o#$ective and a""irms
that no original perceiver or influencer exists. 'he universe has emerged "rom a singular unity o"
o#$ective energy and the student o" science emerges later on. 0""ectively (e reach accurate
)no(ledge (hen (e detach the su#$ective o#server and study reality in its original "orm o" #lind
"orces and energies& (ithout the %ualities o" li"e& mind& consciousness or intelligence& (hich have
emerged "rom the "undamental material %ualities guided #y natural la(s.
1 1ohm 1980& 2icolescu 2002& 3os(ami 1993& 45*64 -ol" 2001
2 'al#ot 1996& 80*14 5as!lo 20074 de 6uincey 2002& 24.394 7ussell 2002
3 7adin 1997& 257*73
4 | P a g e
3. Integral thought and panp"!chi"m
+ontradicting this modern version o" o#$ectivity the suorters o" various integral "rame(or)s tend
to emhasi!e non*duality or ansychism
4
at #oth eistemological and ontological levels. 1rie"ly&
they share a conviction that the realm o" consciousness 8mind& e9erience& intelligence: has never
emerged #ut has al(ays #een resent in various mani"estations. +om#ining the o#server*reality
interdeendence re%uired #y %uantum hysics (ith other data on su#$ect*o#$ect entanglement the
suorters o" the emerging integral metaaradigm argue that assuming a urely material universe is
irrational; that scienti"ic rotocol has roven the element o" e9erience has to e9ist "or the hysical
reality to mani"est. <n other (ords . according to most versions o" integral discernment . %uantum
hysics does not allo( e9istence o" energy (ithout consciousness or o#servation
5
.
<n this ersective the )no(er cannot #e detached "rom the o#$ect o" )no(ing. 2or can )no(ledge
#e searated "rom ercetion& "or (hat one )no(s very much determines (hat one sees. 'hese
"aculties are intert(ined in (ays un)no(n to modern science. =urther our ansychist eistemology
suggests that )no(ledge and ercetion are #y necessity sel"*)no(ledge and sel"*erection. <n other
(ords the more one understands the la(s o" o#$ective nature the more one understands himsel" and
vice versa. /lso this hints that (ithout accurate sel"*)no(ledge . (ho am <& (here do < come "rom .
"ull understanding o" o#$ective reality might #e unavaila#le.
'here are "e( means o" testing emirically (hich %uality . e9erience or energy . "orms the #asis o"
reality or i" they are comletely olar and mutually interdeendent. 'he hilosohical de#ate
#et(een materialism and idealism aears eternal. >ome ne( data on e9erimental article hysics
does suggest that (ave*roerties are "undamental and article %ualities derivative
6
. ?o(ever
correlating (ave*vi#ration (ith consciousness and the realm o" articles (ith matter is not (ithout
comlications since (aves and articles are mani"estation o" the same underlying sea o" undivided
otentiality
7
.
-e only )no( #oth domains e9ist "rom the very #eginning o" the measura#le universe #ut have no
acceted emirical means to enetrate the veil o" non*duality and (itness directly the immuta#le
"oundation giving #irth to the cosmos o" #oth energy and e9erience. Particle accelerators& large
mirror telescoes and high mathematics ta)e us near #ut not through. 'he singularity o" in"inity is
li)e a #lac) hole (hether seen at the level o" %uanta& the #ig #ang or the a#stractions o" mathematics
4 >)r#ina 2005& Mathe(s 20034 5as!lo 2007& 111*34 de 6uincey 2002& 223*30
5 3os(ami 1993& 1414 de 6uincey 2002& 29
6 5as!lo 2007& 140
7 5as!lo 2007
5 | P a g e
or hilosohy; it suc)s dry even the slightest ossi#ility o" structural )no(ledge and leaves only the
mystical silence o" the sel"*a(are o#server.
4. #aw" of experience
>o along (ith the ontological statement 8#oth energy and e9erience e9ist throughout: an
eistemological mani"esto arises 8)no(ing reality and )no(ing onesel" cannot #e searated: (hich
re"orms the redominant conviction o" scienti"ic )no(ing. >ince the assumtion o" the rimacy o"
o#$ectivity no longer suorts our understanding o" natural la(s science no( needs an account o" the
o#server hersel" . an account sculted (ith the same systematic clarity and ersistence as are the
theories o" o#$ective nature. -e need to uncover the natural laws of experience $ust as (e have
uncovered la(s o" nature& or energy.
>uch an account (ould not #e $ust another e9tension to scienti"ic understanding #ut a "ull
re"ormation since it rede"ines #oth scoe and direction o" truth and )no(ledge. +omlete scienti"ic
)no(ledge may therea"ter #e reached #y studying #oth domains (ith same seriousness and
accurately grasing their deeer interrelationshi and aroaching the veil o" non*duality. 'o
resuose the riority o" o#$ective matter then corresonds (ith the scienti"ic naivety o"
resuosing an earth*centered model o" the universe. Many contemorary scienti"ic aroaches go
astray in this regard; they resuose o#$ectivity and erect e9lanations o" li"e& mind& cosmology and
eistemology on the ground stone o" this unresolved issue.
'o #egin the search "or the natural la(s o" e9erience (e should study e9isting 8unconventional:
aroaches in order to "ind the most systematic accounts "or "urther study. -hy so@ 1ecause the
scienti"ic enterrise has only an arentice status in regard to dee issues o" consciousness and non*
duality. >cience should ractice the method it reaches; (hen studying novelties one must #egin #y
maing out revious research. Millennia*old traditions o" )no(ledge are very "amiliar (ith su#$ect*
o#$ect entanglement and other su#tle henomenological layers o" reality.
5. Differentiating "cience from metaparadigm"
/nother (ay to aroach non*dual or ansychist eistemology is #y distinguishing #et(een t(o
domains; the universal scienti"ic rotocol and a historical scienti"ic metaaradigm. 'he "irst domain
indicates the grand %uest o" man)ind; systematic e9anding and "ine*tuning o" understanding in
order to erceive reality (ith comlete clarity. 'he second domain re"ers to any social system o"
shared #elie"s suorted #y a historical standoint in the grand %uest4 in other (ords a oulari!ed
6 | P a g e
historical version o" intellectual coherence re"lecting 8and simli"ying: any current hase in the
evolution o" )no(ledge.
'he distinction re"lects the aramount aologia deriving "rom su#$ect*o#$ect entanglement; ?uman
#eing& his inner e9erience& is the )no(er and the original device o" science . science #eing #ut an
e9tension to man (ho is the actual erceiver and )no(er. >cience re"lects manAs striving to "ind the
most general la(s that allo( him to erceive and e9lain reality to its utmost a#solute ne9us . to
di""erentiate static "rom the actual #roadcast. 'his osition could also #e interreted so that science
never e9lains anything in itsel". <t merely descri#es the outcome o" research rotocol. <t is the
human consciousness (ho then aroves these descritions as e9lanations& thereto"ore temorarily
denying the ossi#ility that hidden deeer more ro"ound descritions still a(ait to #e unveiled.
<n this vie( anyone (ho seriously claims science e9lains thoroughly ho( the (orld (or)s has not
"ully understood the astounding rogression o" science. ?o( could (e #e sure that (hat (e today
)no( scienti"ically re"lects the actual limits o" reality@ +ould (e #e (itnessing only the ti o" the
ice#erg@ 'he chain o" scienceAs evolution testi"ies an ongoing e9ansion o" ercetion and
)no(ledge. 7eeatedly the sel"*satis"action accomanying crystal*clear reali!ations has #een
relaced #y #e(ilderment a"ter ne( "rontiers oen u.
Protagoras& ,escartes and ?usserl discussed the same reali!ation in their o(n terms #ut have since
#een mostly misunderstood. 0ssentially science means systematic and coherent e9ansion o"
ercetion within this original device. 'he < (ho )no(s is the eicenter o" all )no(ledge. /
scienti"ic metaaradigm on the other hand e9ists at the level o" social order and is there"ore
historical; limited #y language and social convention. =urther this suggests that scienti"ic er"ection
might only #e "ound at the level o" in(ard human e9erience and not at the level o" social contract o"
out(ard scienti"ic communication via linear language.
'he restatement o" this su#tle reali!ation shared #y mystics and hilosohers o" many ages
condenses the elemental issue o" the scienti"ic and siritual re"ormation during ostmodern cultural
acceleration; trans"iguration o" the core aroach o" science (hich still assumes that scienti"ic
method guarantees o#$ective rationality o" )no(ledge in itself. Bn the contrary (e no( #egin to
understand that science itsel" is #oth mute and #lind. >cience is #ut another name "or the grand %uest
o" the mysterious sel"*consciousness trying systematically to "ind sustaining clarity (hile sur"ing the
erle9ing dualities o" e9istence. <n this regard there is no "undamental di""erence #et(een science&
mysticism& religion& 3od*%uest and sel"*reali!ation. Procedures o" natural science are e9trasensory
7 | P a g e
ercetion tools "or the original scienti"ic device o" e9erience& #eaming out to(ards matter and
senses yet catecorically e%uivalent (ith in(ard methods o" mystics. 1oth #ring data #ut ma)e no
claims.
6. Theorie", explanation" and perception
2atural scienti"ic )no(ledge is roduced #y the lin)age o" inner ercetion and coherent theories
descri#ing outer henomena. 'he giant lea "rom )no(ledge #eing descritive into #eing an
explanation ho(ever is comletely mental. 2o coherent ercetion con$oined (ith a rational theory
can #y itsel" rove that a deeer e9lanation does not e9ist ma)ing the initial e9lanation mere
sur"ace study. <n other (ords anything a system o" analytical )no(ledge& say one o" theoretical
hysics or cosmology& a""irms receives its meaning only (hen that system synchroni!es (ith the
inner "aculties o" the e9eriencing mind atterning that system. <n e""ect )no(ledge is al(ays
relative to the e9eriencer& su#$ect to social conditioning and limited #y the un)no(n limits o"
resent day scienti"ic theories and devices. 2iels 1ohrCs testimony
8
on the di""iculties in discussing
%uantum hysics suorts this concetion.
/t the level o" scienti"ic enterrise this notion suggests that regardless o" ho( seriously any scienti"ic
community insists on a universal concet or theorem e9laining core reality (e can al(ays conceive
o" another scienti"ic community acceting that theorem only as a su#traction to their larger
ercetion o" the la(s o" reality. >ince #oth the organi!er and erceiver o" )no(ledge is human
e9erience no matter ho( deely natural science ro#es the (orld o" o#$ective henomena and sense
data no set o" urely hysical la(s can #e structured (hich (ould eliminate the need to install
metahysically active su#*assumtions to suort the overall e9lanation (ithin human e9erience.
7. Ultimate $nowledge
=rom this ersective there is one (ay to e9and )no(ledge to(ards comleteness; to(ards the
re"lecting su#$ect& to(ards the )no(er. 'o do this the synergy #et(een the )no(er and the )no(n
8consciousness and energy: must #e accounted "or. 'o solve (ith mathematical recision the mystery
o" ho( consciousness has come a#out and ho( it relates to energy is in this vie( the %uintessence o"
scienti"ic comletion. 6uestion remains (hether this ultimate redicament can #e solved #y an entire
enterrise or does the ortal to comlete reali!ation oen u to individual e9erience alone. <n either
case this ronouncement transorts science #ac) to the direction o" mysticism and metahysics #y
entangling the su#$ect or the )no(er (ith the o#$ect o" his )no(ing in (ays that remove the
8 Peat 2007& 923
8 | P a g e
ossi#ility o" ans(ering dee %uestions o" e9istence (ith the #ehind*the*glass aroach o" modern
science.
-e do have many solutions historically and esecially (ithin the emerging integral metaaradigm.
<ssue o" highest imortance then #ecomes; ho( (e can test (ithout "ail . (ith the rigorous attitude
o" scienti"ic emiricism . (hich version o" ne( scienti"ic understanding (e ought to em#race to
maintain coherence and not #ecome enmeshed in mirror*halls o" (ish"ul cognitions suorted #y
remature sel"*satis"action. <" as scientists (e have to re*enter the ortals o" the mystical& (e should
do it (ith cautious ro#ing o" the variety o" earlier accounts and messengers. 'here should #e a ath
(hich ma)es the mystical seem rational #y o""ering tangi#le methods o" emirical con"irmation
(ithin our o(n ercetion.
8. %ain "cientific re"earch tradition" of non&dualit!
<" (e accet . even as a hyothesis . the a#ove suggestion that scienti"ic )no(ledge cannot
rationally restrict itsel" to sheer o#$ectivity (e are easily led either to nihilism& solisism& autocracy
or the (ilderness o" a#stractions "illing the halls o" history o" hilosohy (ith la#yrinthine analyses
(ithout solid resolutions.
1ut this is the case only (ith (estern hilosohies (hich have #een . (ith the e9cetion o" some
idealist and rocess hilosohies . "i9edly determined (ithin the o#$ectivity theorem and con$oined
detached logics o" linearity. 0astern hilosohies 8such as 7a$a Doga& 'aoism& Een*1uddhism and
>u"i: along (ith schools o" the esoteric 8Fa##alah& 3nosticism& 'eosohy: ho(ever have a long
history o" systematic and emirical ro#ing o" non*duality and consciousness issues. 'he di""erence
is that having ac)no(ledged the entanglement o" o#$ect and su#$ect earlier the eastern sages and
scientists o" the esoteric too) another emirical ath; systematic study o" inner e9erience.
>cholars have noted resem#lances #et(een eastern cosmologies and sychologies constructed via
methods o" inner emiricism (ith those o" modern natural science
9
. 'hemes such as evolution&
sychosomatics& sel"*organi!ation& vi#rating matter& non*locality& astronomy& the unconscious& #ig
#ang& relativity& electricity and magnetism are systematically covered #y ancient ?indu scritures
10
(hich include the entire edi"ice o" reality no less comletely than do the theories o" modern science.
/nd esecially the realm o" e9erience has #een care"ully and analytically studied. ?indu sages have
#een emirical scientists o" consciousness #e"ore the #eginning o" (ritten history. ?uston >mith
11
9 =or e9amle >agan 1980
10 >ee Dogananda 1999
11 7ussell 2002
9 | P a g e
used to remind a"ter /. F. +oomaras(amy that "or each sychological term in 0nglish there are "our
in 3ree) and "orty in >ans)rit& the mother tongue o" oriental science.
9. 'ighe"t "tandard of truth( the full! "elf&reali)ed
'he modern o#server might argue such a henomenological ronouncement o" inner emiricism and
direct ercetion advances solisism and annihilates the rosect o" un%uestiona#le truth"ulness.
/gain (e meet the challenge that since everyone may claim having encountered a#solute reality&
ho( can (e tell "or sure (ho sea)s the truth& i" anyone@ 'o resolve the di""erence #et(een "alse
rohets and ossi#le real avatars o" ure truth (e may roceed #y analy!ing in detail the
relationshi o" scienti"ic )no(ledge and human e9erience.
5et us consider "ive statements suorted #y scienti"ic research
12
;
1: scienti"ic theories and devices are manu"actured& udated and aroved #y human
consciousness . the original scienti"ic device
2: throughout reality consciousness and energy are intert(ined
3: #oth energy and consciousness rocess as inter"erence atterns o" vi#ration
4: all o" vi#rating reality is non*locally and directly connected via an undivided 8nonvi#rating:
sea o" energy otential o"ten titled the /)ashic =ield
5: the inter"ace o" mindG#rain in human #eings is the highest )no(n mani"estation o"
consciousness
,educing "rom these a9ioms (e can "urther e9and the notion o" human consciousness as the
original scienti"ic device. 3iven that consciousness vi#rates throughout the universe (ith various
atterns o" vi#ration and varying colla#orations (ith measura#le energies and given that the human
#rain is the most intricate machinery o" consciousness amli"ication and transmittance (e can
there"ore assume that the mindG#rain inter"ace is indeed the suerior device "or directly grasing
the deeest (or)ings o" reality.
<n other (ords (e have reasons to test the hyothesis that all o" the (ondrous scienti"ic theories&
measurements and assisting devices (e have so "ar constructed are in"erior (hen comared to the
near magical device o" mind*#rain inter"ace (hich may& as the advanced students o" the esoteric
claim& allo( direct tuning into higher levels o" reality all the (ay to the a#solute (here the little
12 >ee 5as!lo 2007
10 | P a g e
sel" o" the individual $oins the larger sel" o" the unmani"est. /t this culmination the )no(er& o#$ect
o" )no(ing and rocess o" )no(ing all merge as one.
'his then means that the source o" highest scienti"ic )no(ledge (ould #e to contact those (ho
have "ine*tuned their devices and "inally received "ull e9anded ercetion. <nstead o" the
evolution o" )no(ledge (e no( have the evolution o" the human #eing. Hltimate )no(ledge and
intermediary e9anded states o" understanding are there to #e "ound #y anyone (ho scienti"ically
"ollo(s the e9amle o" earlier sages (ith varying levels o" enlightenment. 'ruth"ulness is no
structure or system& #ut in(ard immersion into comlete unending clarity. 'hose (ho have it are
one (ith it and those o" us (ho are still see)ing are #linded #y delusion to some e9tent.
<n these lines (e can comose an udated de"inition o" scienti"ic )no(ledge;
'rue scienti"ic )no(ledge indicates "ine*tuning o" human ercetion so that
it encomasses an enlargening shere o" reality through e9act
corresondence (ith the la(s o" cause and e""ect o" mani"est henomena
and #y increasing identi"ication (ith the uncaused a#solute #eyond
mani"est reality.
'his de"inition may #e "urther analy!ed in its t(o categories. =irstly& (hen the ercetion o" a human
#eing e9ands so that an increasing num#er o" cosmic rocesses and henomena are erceived (ith
mathematical la("ulness and e""ectively the num#er o" contradicting henomena continuously
diminishes& that human #eing gains more accurate )no(ledge o" mani"est reality erceived through
the senses. >econdly& (hen a human #eing has su""icient "ocus and stamina to contemlate
unceasingly the unmani"est reality e9isting #eyond mani"est reality& that human #eing (ill reali!e
oneness (ith ultimate e9istence.
10. %odern "cience and the "cience of "elf&reali)ation
'his situation in "act resem#les the rocedures o" modern science (hich #uild on theories and
emirical con"irmation. Many scientists may claim having constructed a theory e9laining crucial
henomena. 0ach scientist is then resonsi#le "or e9licating in rational language #oth the results
and her ath(ay into the theory so that others can dulicate his roceedings and "ind the same
results. 5i)e(ise in order to ersonally come into terms (ith rosects o" an e9anded non*dual
reality (e should see) out the most rational roonents and test their given methods (ith scienti"ic
seriousness.
11 | P a g e
11. Empirical "tud! of metaparadigm "hift
>o instead o" scholarly discussion o" the mesmeri!ing issues o" science and e9erience (e could ta)e
the route o" emiricism. -e )no( incommensura#le (ays o" erceiving reality scienti"ically e9ist.
+riti%ue o" modern o#$ectivity "urther suggests that the alternative reality*e9eriences may #e more
coherent than the redominant metaaradigm o" science. 'here"ore (e should try to "ind (ays o"
emirically testing these realities through phenomenological identification. <n the case o" modern
science and the integral metaaradigm (e could then try to advance #y either "alsi"ying the theorem
o" o#$ectivity or roving the tenets o" integral reality.
12. *uthoritie" and direct perception
<" )no(ledge is a "unction o" highly*tuned inner e9erience is there then another (ay o" see)ing
higher )no(ledge than see)ing out those (ith an acclaimed high level o" enlightenment to educate
us novices (ith the su#tle arts o" reali!ation@
'he same holds in modern science. 0ven more than ersonal discrimination or ra( data research our
inner scienti"ic devices are conditioned #y authorities o" truth; leading researchers& ioneers&
hilosohers& sages. 'he more theoretical caital or academic status certain authorities have
acclaimed the more (e are li)ely to reshae our vie(s according to their strong commitments . or
our suer"icial understanding o" their ideas.
'he more (eight a name has the more deenda#le his arguments feel. ?o( easily such a rotocol
(ill )ee us earth#ound inside (hat is already )no(n. B" course (e can not (holly discard the
message o" authorities . (ithout redecessors (e learn very little. 1ut (e can choose them. -hat (e
need to initially reali!e is that there might #e higher ercetion o" reality in other traditions o"
)no(ledge #eyond our "amiliar community and mode o" ercetion. 'his reali!ation is the nucleus o"
the theory o" scienti"ic revolutions.
>o in order to gain access to higher )no(ledge 8on non*duality "or instance: (e have to locate the
right eole. 'his holds in modern science also. 2o one can deely understand modern science #y
studying #oo)s. Bne has to o#serve scientists& #e educated #y them and become one of them. <s it not
true that the most authoritarian scientists thin) they alone understand (hat science really means@
,ee su#tleties are reali!ed through years o" ersistent studying and research. 'hey can #e relicated
#ut someone (ho has already Igone throughJ is eligi#le o" e9laining lesser students ho( things are.
12 | P a g e
>imilarly i" (e (ish to ma)e sense o" the metaaradigm duality (e can advance #y see)ing out those
on #oth sides (ho uhold highest understanding. /lso (e may as) (hether a metaaradigm really
comes into #eing only (hen an agreement is made as to (ho are these illuminated ones. <n modern
science (e have 3alileo& 2e(ton& 5alace& ,ar(in& 0instein& Planc)& and ?eisen#erg to name a "e(.
'hey have given us models o" )no(ledge that are not only rational and coherent #ut also emirically
testa#le as they are given in mathematical or logical "ormulas. -ith the integral science (e have also
many illumined ones (ho o""er a system o" )no(ledge along (ith methodologies o" con"irmation;
-il#er& 5as!lo& Dogananda& /uro#indo. 1rie"ly; the )no(ledge deals (ith a coherent universe o"
multilayered siritual un"olding (hich can #e roven onto onesel" #y alication o" siritual
methods.
13. Summar!
Bne o" the ivotal issues o" modern science is assuming that scienti"ic truth and su#$ective
considerations are antithetical. <nstead (e have discussed here that it is indeed the su#$ective
considerations o" #oth individual and societies o" scientists that create& maintain and rene( scienti"ic
)no(ledge. 'hese intimations shae dee hilosohical assumtions (hich then determine the limits
o" individual ercetion. Br di""erently that scienti"ic theories and e9eriments are given meaning
only through metahysical contemlation (ithin e9erience and that this meaning has to #e
condensed into a uni"orm metaaradigm "or communication at the level o" social order. 'hen it
"ollo(s that a scienti"ic community may #ecome entraed inside a metaaradigm and there"ore "ail
to erceive #eyond its sel"*de"ined theoretical matri9.
'his ossi#ility o" entrament is (hat must #e studied (ith emirical means o" testing other
alternatives given #y scientists o" e9erience; the yogis and sages.
13 | P a g e
Source"
1ohm& ,avid 81980:; Wholeness and the mplicate !rder. 7outledge +lassics 5ondon
,e 6uincey& +hristian 82002:; Radical "ature# 7ediscovering the >oul o" Matter. <nvisi#le +ities
ress. Montelier& Kermont
3os(ami& /mit 81993:; The Self$Aware Universe. ?o( consciousness creates the material (orld.
'archer Penguin& 2e( Dor)
5as!lo& 0rvin 82004G2007:; Science and the A%ashic &ield# /n <ntegral 'heory o" 0verything. <nner
'raditions& 7ochester Kermont
Mathe(s& =reya 82003:; &or Love of 'atter# / +ontemorary Pansychism. >tate Hniversity o"
2e( Dor) Press& /l#any
2icolescu& 1asara# 82002:; 'anifesto of Transdisciplinarity# >tate Hniversity o" 2e( Dor) Press
Peat& =. ,avid 82007:; &rom (ertainty to Uncertainty) 'hought& 'heory and
/ction in a Postmodern -orld. Pu#lished in =utures 2007 Kol. 39& ages 920.929
7adin ,ean 81997:; The (onscious Universe; 'he >cienti"ic 'ruth o" Psychic Phenomena. ?arer
+ollins >=
>agan& +arl 81980:; (osmos. 7andom ?ouse& 2e( Dor)
7ussell& Peter 82002:; &rom Science to *od. / PhysicistAs Lourney into the Mystery o"
+onsciousness. 2e( -orld 5i#rary& 2ovato +/
>)r#ina& ,avid 82005:; +anpsychism in the West. M<' Press& +am#ridge Massachusett
Dogananda& Paramahansa 81999:; *od Tal%s With Ar,una# 'he 1hagavad 3ita. 7oyal >cience o"
3od*7eali!ation. 'he immortal dialogue #et(een soul and >irit. / ne( translation and
commentary. >el"*7eali!ation =ello(shi& +ali"ornia
-ol"& =red /lan 82001:; 'ind into 'atter# / 2e( /lchemy o" >cience and >irit. Moment Point
Press& 2eedham Massachusetts

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close